Thanks for sharing this update, Vincent. I think this is a good path forward for one of the challenges we keep circling back to in the Collective Action Working Group. I like, and support, the idea that this proposal could be one of the solutions shared at the Summit. I really appreciate the tie-in to the prompts we are working on within the group. Looking forward to naming the challenges associated with “collective action,” identifying insights and proposing a few, tangible solutions.
Hello, everyone - because I still am uncertain which forums are used most by whom, and which are most appropriate for what, I will put my recommendations on the charge questions here, the google doc with the charge questions, and possibly a couple of other places. I will not be able to join the call tomorrow, because I have an irreconcilable conflict, but I wanted the group to have my thinking so you can pick it apart as you see fit in your discussion. Dave
- What are the challenges impeding progress in your thematic area? (i.e. Procurement, Forest Management & Incentives, Measuring Progress, Collective Action)
The greatest single challenge impeding progress in our area is that in an earnest quest for an ideal solution, we are making things too complicated. The perfect is becoming the enemy of the good. If we want to help the climate, let’s simplify our approach and focus on the most important things first.
- What key issues / insights were clarified?
Here are three things we know:
-
We depend on private working forests to provide as much as 90% of the wood in the built environment.
-
Private working forests are already carbon negative or, in other words, they are managed so that carbon stocks are stable or increasing, and forest products markets have a lot to do with that.
-
We want forests that provide carbon benefits to also be managed sustainably. Certifications programs are not perfect, but they are credible standards for sustainability.
-
What are the existing or proposed Solutions you’re seeking input on?
Here are three simple suggested solutions to help us move forward with confidence:
-
Use wood from private working forests that are carbon negative or, in other words, in regions where carbon stocks are stable or increasing.
-
Don’t try to force private working forests that are already carbon negative to become even more carbon negative as a condition of use in the built environment. If we want more carbon in working forests, use market incentives outside of the built environment to achieve that.
-
Use all existing certification programs to demonstrate sustainability in private working forests and wood utilization.
I’m sure our smart colleagues who know LCAs will identify a few simple recommendations to continuously improve our use of whole building LCAs. I suggest we identify the 2-3 most important recommendations and focus on those. -
What is your feedback on the draft Vision statement, i.e. what resonates? Needs adjustment? Significant disagreements?
Simplify the vision statement significantly so that it is truly strategic, inspiring and uniting and not overly tactical and laden with details that divide us. Incorporate the simple things above that we know and that we should focus on to make real progress.
All:
I put a comment in the Google Doc for resources, but wanted to share it here too since I was unclear about process to finalize our suggested resources.
I think the resources we suggest should have some relevance to collective action. While the three at the top of the list are good, arguably only the Forest Sector Markets has anything to do with collective action. The other two are somewhat repetitive and overlapping (albeit good), dealing with with science of forest carbon and products. I’d suggest losing one of them.
As a replacement, I suggest the following paper new from the Forest Climate Working Group, which is as good a collective action group as exists right now. I have quibbles with some points identified, but overall think it is a good framework and strong showing of collective action. Ideally, it’s something we can rally around, and several group members are already signed on. Find it here: https://forestclimateworkinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FCWG-Policy-Platform-V11.pdf
I’d also like to comment on a statement being shared in “Prompts for the Summit,” which I’ve been biting my tongue on when I’ve heard it to date. Not my strong suit, admittedly.
It may be true that “Private working forests’ carbon stocks are stable or increasing, and forest management and forest products markets have a lot to do with that.”
In my opinion, this is a red herring and counter to the central objective of the Summit, which is focused on Climate-Smart Forestry and Products. Another point, “Lack of understanding by the demand side about where to put their collective action efforts” is related, in my mind. In fact, I believe the supply side is just as guilty of misunderstanding demand-side interests, as the other way around. The point about private working forests adding carbon is Exhibit A.
The point, for me at least, is not whether the entire forest area is adding carbon, but how to help people and organizations trying to source climate-smart wood be successful. This means identifying, incentivizing, regulating and/or rewarding those specific forest managers who are meeting the moment (climate crisis) by significantly improving the way they are managing forests and the products derived therein. On the ground this means some combination of managing for resilience and additional carbon storage, above and beyond a baseline.
While I have heard Ara’s reasonable point about the “original sin” of this effort - namely that a small group set the direction before the tent was enlarged - I don’t think we should lose the original purpose.
Specifically, climate change is a crisis. We need to do more than simply continue on apace in an industry that is both a cause of and solution to the problem. For forest management and forest products, this means working with demand-side actors to help them understand forest realities. And, to help them source products that represent leading efforts to address the climate crisis with a level of ambition in line with the problem. We can debate the specific practices - whether it’s old growth protection, pre-commercial thinning in over-stocked dry-side stands, longer rotations, avoidance of harvest on steep slopes to maintain soils, protection of habitat for declining species populations and more.
But the genesis of this event was the strong and growing demand from the leading architects, owners and contractors/developers for climate smart wood. That will never mean all wood, but rather in the best case it will represent a consensus-based direction for the timber industry writ large. It means change in common practice to meet the moment. I believe that over the coming years, the social license to operate is on the line for the forest products industry. This is existential in the truest sense of the word.
For me, this is the key point that determines how we take collective action going forward.
1 Like
Strongly agree with Brad on all accounts.
@b.kahn Yes, the Forest Climate Working group doc was shared in previous meetings and will be listed under the working group’s “Examples of Collection Action” along with the other resources that were also shared in previous meetings. I’ll be moving all those over shortly.
The top three resources from the working group are now being recommended by the Convening Organization to the Steering Committee to be elevated for all Summit attendees. We expect these to be accepted, and so they will not be coming from the Collective Action Working Group, but from the Steering Committee. Therefore our Collective Action Working Group’s additional contribution will be the broad “Examples of Collection Action” with no specific subset of which being recommended reading via our allotted 40 minutes, but rather all being examples that speak to our challenges and proposed solution. I’ll make sure that is qualified when that is shared.
Thanks, Brad, for sharing these thoughts. I have a few reactions/comments, which I’ll try to round out with some (hopefully) helpful suggestions for getting us to the finish line for the pre-work before the Summit.
First, regarding the recommended reading resources: you are correct that none of the top 3 resources are examples of collective action. I do believe they are helpful in grounding us in a similar starting place from which we can then, collectively, work together on how to decarbonize the built environment while ensuring the forests from which the products come from are also doing their part to provide climate mitigation solutions and many, many other benefits. That said, if we had to remove one, I would suggest dropping the guided lessons from Michigan State University. It is a great resource for learning, but I agree that it might not be necessary for teeing up the solutions being presented by the CAWG. I wholeheartedly endorse sharing the Forest-Climate Working Group’s policy platform as an excellent example of collective action, from diverse organizations and groups.
Now, onto the stickier part of your post.
While I am not pretending to know the specific desires of specific actors in the design/development community, my understanding of the central question around using wood in the built environment is whether it is better for the climate than alternatives, like concrete and steel, AND can it come from forests that are also mitigating climate change, being managed well, and are generally providing more good than bad (and even better, much more good!). Embodied and embedded carbon are key to answering the first question. Sourcing wood from regions where forests are “carbon negative” helps add a second layer of information to the first question. At the same time, we need to be able to understand - and feel good about - what is happening in the forest beyond the carbon facts. And you touched on the key needs: are they being managed to adapt to a changing climate, do they need additional stewardship, are they protecting/providing critical habitat? I’m all in here!
Then, I start to diverge from your post. Yes, we should all have choices about where and how we can buy anything, especially things that we want to have a positive impact in the world. But just because I might like something better, have a personal preference, maybe have a personal connection to the maker of the product, it doesn’t mean it’s automatically “better” than another product. I re-read your post many times and it sounds like you are saying that private forest land managers/owners, like Weyerhaeuser, aren’t significantly improving the way we are managing our forests to be resilient to a changing climate, aren’t sequestering more carbon both in our forests and in the products we make, aren’t protecting habitat, biodiversity, providing clean water and more.
If that’s what you intended to say, I disagree completely. I invite you – and others – to learn more about what we do and visit our website: www.wy.com/sustainability. I personally stand behind everything written, everything shared. And, I know that the many forestry experts invited into this forum have similar pride in the strength, validity and excellence of their forest management. And, most importantly, we have great respect for the many different ways forests are cared for, stewarded and managed.
So perhaps this is where we really diverge. Similar to what I posted in February on the forum, are we trying to build a big tent, where we can work together, agree where we disagree, learn together, and chart a new path together? Or, are we trying to pit on thing against the other?
Doesn’t that approach make collective action really hard, if not impossible? I might like the color blue, someone else might like the color yellow. Blue isn’t necessarily better than yellow nor is yellow better than blue. Can we only agree if we find the spaces that are green? I would hope we could see the benefit of blue and yellow and green and find opportunities to improve in all of those colors. How about we turn them to sapphire, into gold, into emerald?! If the intent of the Summit is to turn blue to yellow or yellow to blue, I believe we are going to miss the opportunity to find any moments of green or the dazzling brilliance of emerald, sapphire or gold.
The point I’m trying to say: I, too, believe the climate crisis is real. And we need all of the tools on the table to fight it and solve for it. We also need really well-managed forests. Certification systems, like FSC (which you represent), and SFI (which Jason Metnick represents and which all of Weyerhaeuser’s lands are certified to), and others, like CAS and ATFS, have done a great job to drive sustainable forest management on private forest lands. FSC and SFI have also done a great job at helping mills with sustainable sourcing using risk-based approaches and the SFI Fiber Sourcing standard has improved land management on uncertified forests. While there is always room for improvement in all certifications, they are all highly credible and should provide confidence to designers and developers with respect to sustainable sourcing. Still, some may choose to buy from one or the other. That’s wonderful! I want that choice, too.
These are the points I keep coming back to:
• Nearly three quarters of the net annual forest carbon sequestration in the lower 48 states (nearly 1,200 million metric tons) comes from private working forests adding to the 82,000 million metric tons already stored in these forests, and that each forested region is carbon negative.
• Each year 100 million metric tons of additional carbon is stored in the wood products pool, adding to the nearly 10,000 million metric tons of carbon already stored in these products.
• We harvest only 2% of the private working forest land base in our nation each year, and that each year we replant 2% of our working forest land base.
Rather than an existential threat, I see this carbon success story unmatched by any other sector. That should give us all confidence, rather than pessimism, about the future potential of forests and wood construction as a powerful carbon mitigation combination.
And, I recognize the tremendous need for continued improvement in forest management, the need for dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and all hands working together.
This is an important exchange. I strongly agree with Brad that our central objective should be to help decision-makers have the information they need to be confident in their sourcing decisions in the interest of climate change mitigation.
I also agree strongly agree with Ara that we already have a great deal of information that takes a long way toward providing that confidence. Three straight-forward facts stand out:
- Private working forests provide nearly all of the wood used in the built environment.
- These forests are already carbon negative.
- Certification programs are providing credible assurances of important co-benefits beyond carbon mitigation.
It is truly unique to be working with a sector that begins from a carbon negative position and is positioned to do even more. Let’s embrace that early win as our starting point, and then work together to improve upon it using approaches that unite us rather than divide us. Doing so will help us maintain a progressive, forward looking orientation that resists personal or ideological preferences and the temptation to resurfacing past conflicts.
Dear Colleagues:
Thanks to everyone for the hard work over these many weeks to prepare for the forthcoming Summit. One of our important takeaways so far is that an earnest desire for an ideal solution can quickly make things complicated, and the quest for the perfect can become the enemy of the good. Taking a step back and focusing on what is most important first can help us make significant progress now on which we can improve over time.
As we consider the landscape for using wood in the built environment, a few simple facts can help us see more clearly.
- We depend on working forests for all the wood in the built environment. In the U.S. private working forests provide 90% of our wood.
- Working forests are already carbon negative (their carbon stocks are already stable or increasing), and forest products markets have a lot to do with that.
- We want forests that are carbon negative to also be managed sustainably. Certifications programs are available, credible standards for sustainability, and they are routinely revised for continual improvement.
- Life cycle analysis (LCA) is not yet perfect, but it is getting better, and there is collective will to continue improvement. Because LCA does not address many of the issues of concern in forests, certification is an important companion to LCA to address sustainability.
Based on these simple facts, we can feel more confident moving forward if we apply a few simple approaches, such as:
- Ensure that wood in the built environment comes from working forests in regions where forest carbon stocks are stable or increasing.
- Reward private working forests in regions that are already carbon negative rather than trying to force them to become more carbon negative as a condition of use in the built environment. If we want working forests to become more carbon negative, use complementary market incentives outside of the built environment to achieve that.
- Use all existing certification programs to demonstrate sustainability in private working forests and wood utilization.
- Continue to focus concentrated effort on improving whole building LCA to increase its precision over time.
With these approaches in mind, a small group of us have prepared the attached simplified statement (retitled a Joint Principles Statement) as a starting point or primary point of reference for any ongoing effort to draft a joint statement following the summit. We have tried to be more strategic than tactical, to incorporate the concepts we have heard from you, and to provide an approach that will both inspire and unify us in collective action. We hope you find it useful.
Warm regards,
Dave Tenny (National Alliance of Forest Owners)
Jad Daley (American Forests)
Ann Bartuska (Resources for the Future)
Pat Layton (Clemson University)
Jason Metnick (Sustainable Forestry Initiative)
Michael Goergen (U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities)
Ara Erickson (Weyerhaeuser)
P.S. Vince, to be sure this is received by the broader audience, could you post this in the right place to make that happen, if this isn’t it? Also, we can also provide this as a Google Doc, if that is helpful, but we will need some instructions on how to do that. Thanks!
David:
Thoughtful suggestions without question.
It’s evident to me that LCA is not going to be an end-all solution to forestry practices stewardship. It is not the right forum for many of the topics that are being debated within different parts of this Summit.
Drilling down on your groups comment #4 about “LCA not yet being perfect,” here is a dilemma from the “demand side” perspective of how the design community is trying to use LCA carbon data.
…tearing down an existing functional building and re-building it the same but with “carbon negative” mass timber can be shown to be more carbon advantageous than re-use of the original building. Yet, there is nearly an unlimited demand globally for more buildings and material.
Giving timber a “carbon negative or carbon neutral” value within LCA calculations encourages against conservation of limited resources or material optimization. The more material used, the better the LCA results. Yet, there is nearly an unlimited demand globally for more buildings and material.
Progress on how this dilemma gets resolved would be very useful to moving forward.
I can’t speak to what will happen in other countries, Don, but I am familiar with what has happened with regard to private working forests in the U.S. Since the 1950’s our population has increased by over 80%, bringing a corresponding unprecedented increase in demand for housing and other consumer goods made from trees. During this same period our forest land base has remained stable, and the volume of wood in our standing inventory has increased by nearly 60%. That suggests a strong supply side response to growing demand. In fact, in some areas of the country the supply response has been so vigorous that supply relative to demand is depressing log prices and threatening the conversion of forests to other uses.
Because of the need to balance harvest and forest regeneration to maintain the viability of forestry as a commercial enterprise, it is likely that supply and demand will continue to rationalize over time as they have in the past. If supply becomes constrained, price will increase, and demand will respond accordingly, etc.
Using a carbon stocks test can serve as a surrogate for the supply and demand dynamics. So long as carbon stocks remain stable or are increasing in a region, the carbon impact of sourcing from that region can be considered neutral to negative. If the carbon balance turns into a net source, the carbon benefits calculation changes accordingly.
A great resource on this topic is the Office of the Chief Economist at USDA. Bill Hohenstein in that office has studied this topic extensively and is a great resource to understand the historic and likely future market dynamics.
Again, I can only speak to private working forests in the US, but I hope this helps at least to some degree.
Dave
I agree that private working forests are important for climate-smart wood production. However, a substantial amount of wood is produced on public lands, and that wood is important to many timber-dependent communities, mills, and other businesses. Public forests often store as much or more carbon per acre than private forests, so it might be good to think about solutions that reward climate-smart forestry regardless of ownership types. For example, my understanding is that certification doesn’t work for many public land owners because their budget for things like road and stand tending is not under control of the managers.
Andy thanks for your comments. The federal system is not allowed to be certified.
A good bit of the USFS and some BLM lands are in protected areas and therefore are not harvested and not managed (wilderness areas etc.) I agree that federal and state forests are important in carbon sequestration. When their management plan includes harvesting, I think they should be used for buildings or other of the many forest products.
There are many forests as you mention, that are operated with timber production as one of the primary goals. Each USFS management plan (a 10-year planning horizon) identifies what the forest stands are used for and how they will be managed. These are public processes that take into account the many voices of the nation for how a specific forest or section of a forest is managed. I think this works well, except sometimes litigation stops the plans from being accomplished. For USFS managers sakes, it would be ideal if they could plan with public input and approval and then implement without legal battles. It would also help if we had markets/uses for much of the timber that is thinned to prevent forest fires, or we begin to use more prescribed fire to reduce the fuel buildup. Alas that is a problem in a lot of national forests, especially in the West. In the South, at least in SC, our national forests and national parks use prescribed fire as a restoration tool as we recognize that pine savannahs are important habitat types for plants and animals and with prescribed fire it reduces wildfire damage.
We don’t need to overcut but we do need to recognize that some thinning and some harvesting are important tools to prevent natural disturbances that are damaging to humans, towns, and special places if we plan to live, work and play where forests are located.
Thanks for the facts and approaches outline and Joint Principles Statement David.
As expected, environmental organizations have a slightly different take (some would say quite a different take) and are concerned about overselling the existing scientific data and ultimately not meeting our targets on climate and biodiversity.
In the interest of discussion and a more precautionary approach, a number of environmental/conservation reps on the CAWG put together the following working text for a context and vision for what we are trying to accomplish:
CONTEXT
In order to address the interconnected dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, it is critical that we move as fast and far as possible to reduce embodied carbon in the built environment, creating buildings whose net carbon footprint is neutral or even negative. To accomplish this, we must find ways to minimize the climate impacts of forest products, including mass timber, and promote better outcomes for forests, the climate and people. The IPCC has warned that we have less than 10 years to drastically reduce our emissions from fossil- and land-based sources at levels sufficient to avert catastrophic global warming. Given the scale and urgency of the problem, business as usual is clearly not enough; we must effect a fundamental transformation of our relationship to forests, setting and pursuing ambitious goals for their conservation, restoration and stewardship.
VISION STATEMENT : By 2030…
-
North America’s remaining primary forests and intact forest landscapes – areas that have not been significantly disturbed by human activity – have long since been permanently protected , and conservation measures have been extended to encompass significant areas of previously logged forest, allowing the recovery of ecosystems and enhancing stores of forest carbon.
-
Forest restoration has occurred across wide areas and conversion to non-forest uses has been halted , thereby increasing the area of North American forests, extending habitat, rebuilding ecological integrity and resilience and increasing the provision of crucial environmental services such as water quality, flood control, etc.
-
Forest management practices have become climate smarter. Through strengthened voluntary and regulatory approaches, incentives such as tax and high-quality carbon credits, and other means, overall carbon stores in working forests have been substantially increased and their diversity, integrity and resilience has improved.
-
Plantations now complement natural forests, no longer replacing them through conversion . Many previous plantations have been managed toward more natural conditions, including by incorporating restoration areas.
-
The transformation of our relationship to forests has increased social and economic justice and improved human health. In particular, the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples and people of color have been advanced. Frontline communities of all kinds are empowered to participate in decisions affecting their well-being. Use of highly hazardous chemicals in forestry is tightly restricted to protect public health.
-
Forest certification systems independently verify climate-smarter forestry and facilitate the procurement of climate-smart wood through certified chains of custody. Their standards require forest practices well above current legal minimums and implement landscape-level solutions that preserve forest ecosystems.
-
Life cycle assessment and forest carbon accounting methods developed by independent, science-driven institutions provide the basis for verified, transparent and accurate information on the carbon footprint of wood products (for example, by reflecting the differential impact of different approaches to management on stores of carbon in forests of origin) and thereby permit valid comparisons of wood with other building materials.
-
Carbon stored in wood products is maintained for longer than one cycle through reclamation, recycling, or re-use. Extending the useful lifetime of products significantly reduces the pressure to harvest virgin timber and contributes to the circular economy with concomitant climate benefits.
-
Building professionals have supported all of these changes by driving the procurement of wood products from climate-smarter forestry and from recycled, reclaimed or salvaged sources.
This is still a work in progress and will continue to be through the Summit as we compare notes. As opposed to meeting an unlimited demand, there is still some discussion in our circle around how to use progressively fewer wood products in order to achieve our goals in nature based climate solutions and biodiversity conservation.
No one said this was going to be easy. At least it seems that there are some parallel themes emerging on which there may be some common interest and support.
The Summit (and hopefully post-Summit) will explore some of these issues and I trust that we can come to a common understanding of the accepted science and the important role forests must play in climate solutions as well as biodiversity protection.
Thanks to all for their insights and inputs to date.
1 Like
I’m confused about the goal of using of progressively fewer wood products. The UN sustainable development goals call for lifting people out of poverty by providing housing, education, employment, health care, etc. – accordingly, parts of the world require lots of new construction. Developed countries are also not going to shut down their construction industries. Right now, for mid- and high-rise buildings, if we don’t build with wood, we will use a lot more steel and concrete. (Transitions for those materials are also envisioned but not on a faster timeline than transitions in forest management practices.)
My understanding of the premise of the summit was that we wanted to use the advent of mass timber and interest in its potential to substitute for steel and concrete to drive change in forestry practices as wood is going to be used more frequently and so is a concern. I think AEC professionals will lose the ability to drive procurement of wood in any direction if we are using a lot less of it - why would any vendor listen to a customer who is walking away? (Maybe not the worst outcome, but not the premise of the summit.)
If the science does not support the idea that we can continue to use present (or increasing) levels of wood and meet our climate and biodiversity goals, what does it say about continuing to use current or expanding quantities of steel and concrete? In the spirit of the SDGs and “donut economics,” I would offer that humans need to use enough resources to not fall into the “donut hole” of underdevelopment (which is also true in its own way in so-called developed countries). I’m a bit concerned that the vision here overlooks achieving an adequate level of human development by focusing largely on the environmental sphere without a corresponding focus on the social and economic spheres of sustainability.
I think that will be a focus of our joint discussions. There are also issues of equity and fairness for indigenous peoples. Some have intact forests that they want to totally “protect” (there are many definitions/approaches) and others that would like to see a sustainable approach to forest management, including harvest. These regional differences can be see even in North America and I suspect it gets a lot more complex globally.
Don, all,
Appreciate your example on where the LCA tool is not working perfectly, Don. It is a good example and an easy one. Applicable to wood replacement buildings as well as concrete/steel replacement buildings. Adaptive reuse will most often be the very best place to start to build carbon negative/neutral! Sadly our 20th century replacement mindset is still with us, and ‘tear down’ is almost always deemed cheaper too…
But that is not the point.
We have got to use the tools we have right now. LCA science is a major help in quantifying what goes into our buildings, and where those materials come from and how they are made and transported to our buildings. It is a huge helpful roadmap to better understand. And it’s one of several major tools we have, including EPD.
But without accounting for biogenic carbon in wood, we lose the once-in-my-lifetime opportunity to go deeper into the supply chain - the forests, the soils, the timber industry and continue to help transition that timber industry into the 21st century. It is immensely valuable tool for change. Without it, we will default to ‘business as usual’ in the construction industry.
Tweaking concrete EPD’s is also an immensely valuable tool. Both EPD’s and LCA need to be employed as major strategies for lowering the damming carbon footprint of OUR industry - the construction industry. Let’s not pit these major advances in Building Science and Material Supply Chain Analysis against one another. They are not incompatible, and should be run in parallel as fast as possible to make the most impact they can.
Susan
Susan Jones, FAIA
architect, owner and founder
atelierjones LLC
911 Pine Street
Floor Two
Seattle, WA 98101
I am a bit confused – are we still creating new vision statements? If so I would be concerned that a nine point vision statement does not work. If we are going into this level of detail in a mission and vision statement we need something more hierarchical. I gave that a shot with Peter and a few others, but was told that we were not re-creating the vision statement. (I do think it is a very important piece to come out of this)
Like everyone else I am so busy doing this work that I’m having a hard time keeping up with the thread. For my part I want to continue to ask (and re-ask) the question of the end-game: What are we hoping comes of all of this work we are doing? Perhaps selfishly I want the map, and I am willing to drop a few things to have a first session on creating the map. I would need three or four of you to join me for a first session of an hour to get started (min viable map-initiation session). Secondly I would like a mission statement that I can use. For it to be useful it needs to be succinct, inclusive, powerful, and progressive in its level of detail (needs the short paragraph version and the one page version). And most importantly it needs to explicitly represent the diversity of voices that are gathered here.
These two things (map and mission) would make my daily work - which is forests-and-wood-all-day-every-day - easier and more effective.
Hi Scott, in the Collective Action Working Group, we tabled the attempt to work on the Vision jointly, however, participants were encouraged (as were/are ALL Summit participants) to submit suggestions on the Vision statement, either individually or with others. Evidently, two separate groups of like-minded folks on the CAWG submitted suggestions in the form of reformulations of the original draft. You, Peter etc. are welcome to do this also, but this should happen ASAP so that the organizing team can put it into the mix with all the other comments/suggestions received to date. Our commitment is to do our best to summarize, synthesize, and reflect back this input in the last part of the Summit, which is dedicated to the Vision. We face a challenge in doing this as we only have about 30 minutes available for this overall and we also need time to use the Mentimeter to take a temperature check on key components of the draft Vision (see the agenda that I distributed yesterday). Sorry if this wasn’t all clear to you – we’ve done our best to provide clarity, but as you say, lots to do and many moving pieces.
Thanks for clarifying Jason.
Several weeks ago we started on this vision strategy and tactics outline (Link here). This is admittedly unfinished, but we were curious if it had resonance as a framework to unburden the “Vision” from trying to do too much onits own. Strategies are not a vision. And tactics are not a strategy. It feels to us that these are getting a bit mixed up.
I would love to hear what anyone else thinks of this. Here it is pasted-in (but comments in the Google doc link above would be more helpful)
Vision Statement
In light of the unfolding climate crisis, and the role of both the built environment and the world’s forest in this crisis, we envision a built environment made up of a substantially increased proportion of lng lived wood building materials whose growth, manufacturing and use contributes to maintaining or increasing the multifold benefits of the world’s forest stocks.
Strategies to Achieve the Vision
This vision hinges on several interdependent “systems thinking” strategies (fields of effort):
-
Holistic forest management includes the big picture of forests, in terms of scale, priorities, multiple forest services, uses and different forest contexts such as ecological, cultural, and regulatory and market.
-
Forest conservation, restoration and preservation are vital and fully integrated in the big picture (systems) of forest management and growth.
-
The forest products industry is increasingly reflective, responsible and efficient, and is capable and willing to measure and demonstrate the costs and benefits of production approaches with respect to the overarching vision.
-
Markets are transformed to (are able to) appropriately respond to the costs and benefits of wood playing a larger role in the built environment and in forest stock improvement.
-
Regulatory systems move toward becoming globally congruent, clear, enforceable and responsive to the need to protect the common legacy of forests while supporting the innovation that will improve production, conservation and the market response to wood product alternatives, and forest stock benefits.
Tools and Tactics to Support the Strategies
To be successful these strategies will employ a very wide variety of tools and tactics depending on contextual factors.
Some examples of these tools and tactics include:
-
Forest certification schemes that are robust, transparent and accessible
-
Protected areas, such as high conservation forests and old growth forests
-
Low impact logging techniques
-
Minimum standards for forest harvesting based on geographic context (min rotations, riparian protections etc.) with high level of regional enforcement
-
Plantation forests, including monoculture plantations
-
Genetic engineering of tree variants
-
Community forest management regimes proposed for local people (indigenous and non)
-
Indigenous land rights allow for unique forest management regimes
-
Highly-technical efficiency-driven management methods and machines
-
Government tax incentives for ____________
-
International agreements, tariffs,
-
Federations and consortiums representing forest protection and forest products producers
-
Increased consumer awareness (advertising, communication campaigns) to improve market sensitivity
-
Cultural advocacy, capacity, vocabulary to support the formation and spread of shared values around forest and built environment.
-
Embargos and public shaming of bad actors who allow desecration of global forest legacies for purely personal gain.
-
International tribunal for “crimes against nature”
Here is the do
Hi, Cliff - for the benefit of the group, could you share which individuals support your draft principles? Thanks.